In our last we left
Absalom caught in an oak, suspended in the air, unable to free himself. His
predicament was indeed a desperate one, for all his followers had forsaken
him. What was to be the sequel? David had given express instructions to his
generals, "Deal gently for my sake with the young man, even with
Absalom" (2 Sam. 18:5). In that charge we see expressed the weakness of
a doting father, rather than the uncompromising faithfulness of a monarch.
It was not for the interests of his kingdom that such an insurrectionist
should be spared, for none could tell how soon he would occasion further
trouble. Sentiment ought never to override the requirements of
righteousness, yet often it is far from easy to perform the latter when they
come into conflict with the yearnings of the former. By yielding to his
paternal feelings and giving such counsel to his men, David created a
difficulty which should never have been raised.

"And a certain man
saw it, and told Joab, and said, Behold, I saw Absalom hanged in an
oak" (2 Sam. 18:10). The commentators differ considerably in their
estimations of what is recorded in this verse and those which immediately
follow. Some criticize this man for his timidity in refusing to take matters
into his own hands and rid the earth of such a wretch; others go to an
opposite extreme and blame him as a sneak for revealing the situation to
Joab, knowing that he would have no scruples against killing Absalom.
Personally, we consider he did the right thing in taking this middle course.
It was not for him, as a private person, to fly in the face of the king’s
charge, and act as public executioner; nor was it the thing for him to
conceal from the general-in-charge the helpless position in which the
archenemy of David was now placed: all of which illustrates what was said at
the close of the preceding paragraph.

"And Joab said
unto the man that told him, And, behold, thou sawest him, and why didst thou
not smite him there to the ground? and I would have given thee ten shekels
of silver, and a girdle" (v. 11). Those words were evidently uttered
rashly on the spur of the moment, for when Joab had listened to the man’s
reply, he did not further upbraid him. Joab failed to realize the quandary
in which David’s command had placed this man, or perhaps he was
constitutionally incapable of appreciating the conscientious scruples which
regulated others—which seems the more likely in the light of what follows.
What a coarse and mercenary spirit his words betrayed! As though a monetary
reward should have been sufficient inducement for anyone to have slain
Absalom in cold blood. One cannot expect such a gross materialist to value
the finer sensibilities of others.

"And the man said
unto Joab, Though I should receive a thousand shekels of silver in mine
hand, yet would I not put forth mine hand against the king’s son: for in
our hearing the king charged thee and Abishai and Ittai, saying, Beware that
none touch the young man Absalom. Otherwise I should have wrought falsehood
against mine own life: for there is no matter hid from the king, and thou
thyself wouldest have set thyself against me" (vv. 12, 13). This
unnamed man was not to be intimidated by the fierce Joab, but boldly stood
his ground and frankly avowed the principles which had regulated his
conduct. Though it was not a lawful command which the king had imposed upon
his subjects, yet this one respected the authority of his royal master.
Moreover, as he shrewdly pointed out, what advantage would he receive from
the largest reward if the penalty for his action were the forfeiting of his
own life? That was an argument which admitted no answer, acknowledged by
Joab’s abruptly terminating the conversation under the plea of haste.

"Then said Joab, I
may not tarry thus with thee. And he took three darts in his hand, and
thrust them through the heart of Absalom, while he was yet alive in the
midst of the oak" (v. 14). Joab will come before us again in the
chapters that follow, but this seems as good a place as any to offer some
remarks upon his character, it has been rightly said that "Among the
followers and closest adherents of David, Joab was one. He was early found
with David in the cave. Whilst Jonathan tarried in the court of Saul, Joab
was sharing the hardships and dangers of David in the wilderness. Throughout
all his subsequent dangers, he stood like a lion at his side, and if extent
of outward service were regarded, David perhaps had no such servant as he.
Yet in order to serve David aright, it was necessary to have respect not to
his office merely, but also to appreciate the character of him who bore that
office; to love him for his own as well as for his office sake, and
above all, to remember that no real service could be rendered to David,
except God were reverently regarded and reverently obeyed" (B. W.
Newton).

It is possible for one
to serve, because of the dignity of his office, one whose excellency as an
individual we have no regard for. In such an event, our service, no matter
however energetic, will probably have its springs in self-interest, and its
course will be marked by self-will and pride. Such indeed was the case with
Joab: he was zealous in maintaining the support of David’s throne, yet he
was ever alive to the maintenance of his own personal interests. He deemed
it best that the crown should rest on David’s brow, because by so doing
his own fortunes were furthered. No matter how definitely or plaintively
David might express his desires, Joab never hesitated, when the opportunity
arose, to outrage the king’s feelings or defy his will if he could thereby
gain his own ends without at the same time compromising the stability of the
throne. In such a course, Joab regarded neither David nor God.

No one can read
carefully the sacred narrative without perceiving that in the latter years
of his reign David was little more than a nominal king. He seems to
have come thoroughly under the power of Joab, the captain of his armies: on
the one hand he was too suspicious to trust him, and on the other too weak
to dismiss him. It is both interesting and instructive to trace out the occasion
and cause whereby Joab established such a despotic control over his
royal master. Nor is this by any means a complicated task: "David wrote
a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. And he wrote in
the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and
retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die" (2 Sam. 11:14,
15). By making Joab the partner and secret agent of his guilty plot
concerning Uriah, David sold himself into his hands; in that fatal letter he
forfeited his liberty, surrendering it to this unscrupulous accomplice.

By temperament Joab was
a daring and energetic man: a bold fighter in lawless times. The faction of
Saul’s house was so strong that at the beginning of his reign David could
scarcely call the throne his own, or choose his servants according to his
own pleasure. Joab was an able warrior, and though he sometimes avenged his
own private quarrels at the expense of his sovereign’s honor, thereby
vexing him at heart, yet he was too strongly entrenched to be displaced.
Nevertheless, at that time David was not afraid to open his mouth and rebuke
him for his slaying of Abner. Nay, be openly asserted his authority by compelling
Joab to rend his clothes, put on sackcloth, and mourn before this very
Abner (2 Sam. 3 :28-31)—a most humiliating experience for one of his own
proud heart, and which made it unmistakably manifest that David was as yet
supreme in his own dominions.

Circumstances might
still constrain David to employ this renowned warrior, and he had not—short
as had then been his reign—yielded himself up to this imperious subject.
On the contrary, as his own cause waxed stronger and stronger, and the
remnant of Saul’s party dispersed, he became king of Israel in fact as
well as in name, so that his throne was established not only by law, but by
public opinion too, for we are told that "whatsoever the king did,
pleased all the people" (2 Sam. 3:36). Consequently, he was now in the
condition to rule for himself, and this he did, for a little later we find
him appointing this officer to be the commander of his army by his own decision,
and that simply because Joab was the one who won that rank, when it was
promised by David as the reward to any individual in his host who should be
the first to get up to the gutter and smite Jebusites at the storming of
Zion (2 Sam. 5:8).

We have only to read
carefully through 2 Samuel 8 and 10, in which are narrated the bold
achievements of David at this bright period of his life, his prowess abroad
and his strong policy at home, the energy he instilled into the national
character, and the respect he commanded for it throughout all the
surrounding countries, to perceive that he reigned without restraint and
without a rival. But then came his fearful fall, that evil sowing from which
he reaped so bitter a harvest, From that point onwards we may discern how
Joab usurped by degrees an authority which he had not before. More and more
he took matters into his own hands, executing or disregarding David’s
orders as suited his own designs; until finally, we shall see he dared to
conspire against his very throne and the rightful successor of his line.

An incident recorded in
2 Samuel 14 well illustrates what we have pointed out above. There we see
the hands of David tied, his efforts to free himself from this oppressor
both feeble and ineffectual, and his punishment of Absalom successfully
resisted, for it was Joab, through the widow of Tekoah, who clamored for the
recall of Absalom from his banishment. The suspicions of the king were
aroused, for he asked, "Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all
this?" (14:19), nevertheless, he yielded to his will. It seems that
this move on Joab’s part was without any other design than to embarrass
the king and force him to do that which could only lower him in the
estimation of his subjects. Certainly he had no love for Absalom as the
sequel clearly shows.

During Absalom’s
rebellion, Joab, as might have been expected, was loyal to the cause of
David, for he had no desire to see his government overthrown and one
of another order take its place. Joab knew full well what was in the heart
of Absalom, and therefore he was prepared to resist him with all his might.
He wished to have the present government of Israel continued, and that in
David’s own person, yet it was out of no love for David that he now fought
against Absalom. This is evident from his open defiance of the express
charge which the king had given his generals: "Deal gently for my sake
with Absalom." But Joab heeded not, for he had lost all respect for
David’s commands. Nothing could he more deliberate than his infraction of
this one—probably the most imperious which had ever been laid upon him. It
was not in the fury of the fight that he forgot his commission of mercy, but
in cold blood he deliberately went to the place where Absalom was hanging
helpless and slew him.

No, if Joab had loved
David and regarded him as his friend, he had never recklessly despised the
anguish of David’s heart and made him cry, "Would God I had died for
thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!" Whatever may be said about his
conferring a public benefit by the removal of this reprobate ringleader, the
fact remains that Joab no longer cared anything for a king whose guilty
secret he shared. He thrust Absalom through the heart with his three
darts, and then made his way, with countenance unabashed, into the chamber
of his royal master, where David was lamenting the death of his son. As we
shall see, the sequel is a piece with what preceded: Joab imperious and
heartless; David, once so regnant, abject in spirit and tame to the lash.
How had the mighty fallen! Into what public humiliation as well as personal
sorrows had his deed of lust and blood now sunk him down?

"And they took
Absalom, and cast him into a great pit in the wood, and laid a very great
heap of stones upon him: and all Israel fled every one to his tent" (2
Sam. 18:17). What in ending is this! Hanged in a tree, abandoned by his
followers, dispatched by Joab, and now his body treated with the utmost
contempt. Instead of receiving the honorable burial of a king’s son, he
was ignominiously dealt with as a criminal: the casting of him into a great
pit intimated their valuation of his carcass, while their laying upon him a
great heap of stones signified that he ought to have been stoned to death as
a rebellious son (Deut. 21:18, 21).

"Now Absalom in
his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself a pillar, which is in the
king’s dale: for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance:
and he called the pillar after his own name: and it is called unto this day,
Absalom’s place" (v. 18). What a striking and solemn contrast do
these two verses present, and what a forcible illustration do they supply of
that principle "whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased" (Luke
14:11); so it was in the history of Haman and of Nebuchadnezzar, and such
was the case here. Absalom had three Sons (2 Sam. 14:27), but they had
predeceased their father, and therefore he sought to perpetuate his memory
by setting up this pillar to honor his name, by the side of which he
doubtless intended that his body should be interred. Alas, how vain are some
men to attract the note of future generations, who are at no pains to seek
the approbation of God. But even in death Absalom was thwarted: "a
great heap of stones as a monument to his villainy was all that marked his
resting-place.

"Then said Ahimaaz
the son of Zadok, Let me now run, and bear the king tidings, how that the
Lord hath avenged him of his enemies" (v. 19). Ahimaaz was the son of
Zadok the priest (2 Sam. 15:27), who was deeply devoted to David. He was one
of the two men who had endangered their lives in the king’s service by
bringing him tidings of Absalom’s plans (17:17-21). That he was a godly
soul is intimated by the language which he used on this occasion, for
instead of flattering Joab, by congratulating him for his bringing the
conflict to a triumphant issue, he ascribes the success to the Lord. How
often God is forgotten in the flush of victory, and instead of exclaiming
"His right hand, and His holy arm, hath gotten Him the
victory" (Ps. 98:1), proud man attributes the defeating of his enemies
to his own strength, vigilance or skill. In such an hour it is for the
servant of God to lift up his voice and make known the truth that the glory
belongs to God alone.

"And Joab said
unto him, Thou shalt not bear tidings this day, but thou shalt bear tidings
another day: but this day thou shalt bear no tidings, because the king’s
sons is dead" (v. 20). In the light of what follows it is not easy to
determine what it was that influenced Joab to refuse the request of Ahimaaz,
for immediately afterward he bids another man go and tell the king what he
had seen, and when Ahimaaz renewed his request, after a slight demur Joab
granted it. It is possible that Joab feared for the life of Ahimaaz and
considered he was too valuable a man to he thrown away, for the name of the
selected messenger ("Cushi") suggested that he was an Ethiopian—probably
an African slave. Joab knew that David was an impulsive and quick-tempered
man, and remembered the fate which overtook the one who bore to him the
tidings of Saul’s death (2 Sam. 1:15), and therefore he probably thought
that a similar vengeance might be visited upon the one who should inform him
of Absalom’s death.

"Then said Ahimaaz
the son of Zadok yet again to Joab. But howsoever, let me, I pray thee, also
run after Cushi. And Joab said, Wherefore wilt thou run, my son, seeing that
thou hast no tidings ready?" (v. 22). The marginal renderings of this
verse seem to decidedly confirm what we have just said above. The words of
Ahimaaz "But howsoever" are literally "be what may":
Whatever be the risk of incurring the king’s fury, I am quite willing to
face it. Joab’s "Wherefore wilt thou, my son," indicates
that he held Ahimaaz in some esteem, and his "thou hast no tidings
ready" is really "no tidings convenient," which
intimates he sought to discourage him from being the bearer of news which
would be so unwelcomed to David. And why, it may be asked, was Ahimaaz
anxious to serve as messenger on this fateful occasion? We believe it was
because he was so devoted to the king that he wished, so far as possible, to
tactfully lighten the blow. This he did, for instead of bluntly
blurting out that Absalom had been slain he simply said, "Blessed be
the Lord thy God, which hath delivered up the men that lifted up their hand
against my lord the King" (v. 28).